Syria’s stalemate

No easy fix

A meeting of Syria’s friends produces kind words but not much else

THE absence of easy solutions to Syria's crisis has often made international responses seem contradictory. At a meeting in Istanbul on April 1st, a group of over 80 nations calling themselves “Friends of the Syrian People” pledged millions of dollars to Syria's opposition. The Syrian National Council (SNC), a tattered umbrella of exiled opposition groups, said funds from Gulf states would pay for salaries (and probably arms) to rebel fighters, in part to encourage Syrian government soldiers to defect. Yet the queasier Americans pledged solely humanitarian aid and communications equipment, and this despite a strident declaration from the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, that “we cannot sit back and wait any longer”.

The meeting did little to dispel the sense, felt keenly by protesters inside Syria but also in the chanceries of neighbouring countries, that the outside world lacks the will to raise stakes high enough to catalyse real change. As Syrian dissidents in smart suits and diplomats (Russian and Chinese officials were notably absent) drifted home from Istanbul, Syria's president, Bashar Assad, announced that he had accepted April 10th as a deadline for implementing a plan by Kofi Annan, the joint UN and Arab League envoy. Under the plan, backed by Russia and China, Mr Assad must withdraw his forces from civilian areas, release detainees and allow in humanitarian aid.

Not for the first time, his actions seem to belie his words. Witnesses suggest Mr Assad's soldiers have recently even escalated attacks, prolonging a violent rampage that has already killed over 9,000 people. Government militias set fire to houses in Deraa in the south, pummelled Sarmin and Saraqeb in the north west and shelled historic buildings in Homs' old city. The death toll would have been higher had not the residents abandoned many areas, says a man in Hama, where people dare venture out only between 10am and 5pm.

There are worries that arming the opposition could generate more violence, but dwindling supplies of ammunition can cause problems too: fighters in a rebel brigade in Homs recently fell out over who would get the last bullets, confides a worried activist.

Yet it is unclear how funding the rebels will work. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which made earlier pledges that have proved largely empty, say they will give the SNC money that it can pass on to the ragtag bands of fighters who call themselves the Free Syrian Army. But links between the SNC and networks on the ground are rough and ready. Activists, who have two co-ordinators in every local committee in case one gets arrested or killed, say their networks have been disrupted. In any case, the scheme to boost the rebels seems at odds with the Annan plan, which calls for a ceasefire (just as American calls for Mr Assad to step down clash with the UN's assumption that he would preside over a transition).

The nuts and bolts of the UN's plan are being questioned, too. Mr Annan's team say they want to send in unarmed monitors, but only when it is safer and they have established whether Syrian or UN troops will protect them. Mr Assad's enemies are urging Mr Annan to draw up a timetable for what happens when the regime, as many expect, fails to keep his word. Nabil el-Araby, the Arab League chief, mooted proceedings under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which allows for military intervention, but this would almost certainly be vetoed by Mr Assad's Russian and Chinese allies—even though they signed up to the Annan plan.